It’s just been sitting there for years: 119 acres of prime, open real estate along Perkins Road between Southdowns and Pollard Estates in the heart of South Baton Rouge. Developers have drooled over it, neighbors have argued about it, appraisers have speculated on it.
Developer Tommy Spinosa of JTS Interests, who paid $15 million two years ago to get it, says it’s the “Mona Lisa of real estate in Baton Rouge,” and he’s got a clear vision of what he thinks the old Ford pasture should be—and what it shouldn’t.
“I just don’t believe in that subdivision model,” Spinosa says. “I think it’s a disaster.”
Instead, he wants to build a village. Rouzan is envisioned as having about 800 residential units of various sizes and prices, about 45,000 square feet of retail space, 45,000 square feet of office space,
10,000 square feet of cafés and restaurants, a school, a library, a church and 13 parks consisting of 23 acres of green space, all connected to the surrounding neighborhoods by an open street grid. It’s the antithesis of the standard Baton Rouge approach, which generally consists of a bunch of single-family houses in an isolated subdivision with exactly one path to get in and out.
“That’s what the development community has delivered,” says Spinosa, who also developed CitiPlace and the still-evolving Perkins Rowe. “There have been no alternatives. We’re very confident this market wants to see (something different).”
When he bought the land from the heirs of Mary and Ralph Ford in 2005, he beat out about 10 other serious bidders, Spinosa remembers, and as far as he knows, every one of them wanted to build a conventional subdivision. It’s basically a once-in-a-lifetime piece of real estate, and he says he couldn’t bear to watch someone else screw it up.
“This is such an opportunity for us, and for what we felt we could do for Baton Rouge,” Spinosa says.
Advertisement | Advertising
Rouzan’s conceptual plan was scheduled to go before the planning and zoning commission Oct. 22. For the project to go forward, the land would have to be re-zoned from A1 single-family residential to a TND zone; some area residents were opposing the change or at least hoping to get a deferral. The Metro Council would also have to give its blessing.
If the basic concept is approved, Spinosa and his firm have to go back to planning and zoning for a series of public meetings to get the specifics hammered out. And if all goes well, he hopes to break ground early next year.
Standing out
A Traditional Neighborhood Development is a compact, planned, pedestrian-friendly development with a grid of narrow streets and a mixture of residential and commercial uses. Following the success of River Ranch in Lafayette, about a dozen TND or TND-like developments are planned for the Greater Baton Rouge area. Never mind that the robust post-Katrina housing market has been cooling off.
Spinosa says Rouzan will stand out from the crowd, partly because of its civic component. The “Village Center,” a relatively high-density mix of homes, condos, retailers and offices, will be situated at the development’s “front door” on the south side of Perkins Road, flanked by the library and village green to the east and the church block to the west, and will be buffered from the purely residential area by Coldwater Creek to the south, according to JTS.
The idea is to create the illusion of an organic neighborhood that grew up around the library. Spinosa will no doubt be accused of using the planned library as a means to an end to get his zoning change, and library officials are fine with that.
“We recognize that we’re a carrot, and that’s OK,” says library director Lydia Acosta, noting that the deal would be beneficial to both sides. A “southern branch” of the library has been needed for years, and the system inquired about space on the Ford property even before Spinosa bought it, she says.
“This is an opportunity for the library to take advantage of a very attractive gift of property,” providing a bargain for parish taxpayers, she says.
The nondenominational Cornerstone Chapel will be built to look like an old Southern clapboard church with enough space for a congregation of 350. A Montessori school with room for 100 students is also planned. Other elementary and middle schools in the area include Glasgow Middle and St. Aloysius.
Most of the architecture will have a French Creole look, with a bit of Mediterranean and other styles sprinkled here and there for “spice,” Spinosa says. In other similar developments, the building standards have been allowed to lapse over time, and he insists that won’t happen in Rouzan. Spinosa plans to have an official town architect and a handful of approved builders. Buyers can bring their own architect to the table, but only certain materials, styles and methods will be allowed. Builders will be required to attend classes to make sure their work measures up in quality and consistency.
“You’ve gotta stick to your guns,” says JTS’ Grant Conway. “It can be a beautiful thing if you hit it right.”
They won’t just be selling land, they’ll be selling home sites. Every buyer will have to commit to build a home on the property within a reasonable amount of time, perhaps 180 days or so. No flipping or land speculation allowed.
And no big boxes, either. The commercial elements will consist of small stores, professional offices and the like, with condos or offices on top. They say they might consider a chain drug store like a CVS, but nothing larger.
Fanning out from the Village Center will be a mixed residential area of single and multi-family houses and townhomes on various lot sizes. Bigger lots reserved for single-family dwellings will be found along the neighborhood’s outer edge.
Everything will be built in stages over the next five years or so, depending on market demand, with part of the Center, including the library and a sales center, and a swath of mixed residential coming first. Lot sizes and home values will differ widely, they say, but as a rule the lots and homes will be smaller than in an A1 subdivision, with significantly higher prices per square foot.
“Like Spanish Town”
Spinosa argues the Baton Rouge obsession with square-foot prices limits the quality of the homes available here, and freely admits Rouzan won’t be able to compete in that arena. Instead, they’re shooting for what Conway reckons is maybe a third of the market: people willing to give up the big living room and formal dining room for a well-crafted, low-maintenance dwelling in a vibrant neighborhood. In short, they’re not selling lots, they’re selling a lifestyle.
“We’re gonna have to really tell our story,” Spinosa says. “You couldn’t do it 10 years ago. This is a good planning idea that’s catching on.”
It’s a hard idea to explain, but if you can walk someone down one of the first streets once it’s been built out on both sides, they get it, Conway says. Spinosa says a few builders may construct model homes, and figures he has enough potential buyers knocking on his door already to get a good start on that first phase.
“We could gate it and be the Country Club of Louisiana right here in the city limits,” Conway says. “TNDs are not for everybody. What it offers is a sense of place in a community.”
Rouzan would be a walkable village that would force residents to actually interact with each other, they say.
More than once, Conway compared Rouzan to Spanish Town, where he owns property. On one level, that’s quite a stretch. Spanish Town, a venerable, artsy downtown neighborhood, is old and funky in the best sense (or worst, depending on your sensibility), while Rouzan will be shiny and new with only a veneer of traditionalism.
But his point is that Rouzan could be like Spanish Town in the sense that residents might actually know each other, might actually wave hello as they walk to the corner market for a loaf of bread. If that’s social engineering, JTS pleads guilty, they say. Just as a conventional post-World War II subdivision, with its big lots, single-family-only homes and automobile-only transportation, is engineered to decrease human interaction, they say Rouzan will be engineered to encourage it.
They claim more than 150 people have already expressed interest in buying when ownership shares become available next year. Some are retirees looking to move into something smaller but newer, without a big yard to tend. And quite a few of them live in Southdowns.
What will the neighbors think?
Spinosa says the biggest obstacle to his vision of Rouzan has been the Southside Civic Association, which the association says consists of about 1,800 households on the south side of Perkins Road. Traditionally, the association, or at least its board, has been adamantly opposed to changing the Ford property zoning from A1.
Association president Chris Kisling of Aberdeen Avenue says an A1 zone would keep the development consistent with the adjoining neighborhoods, while the TND would put greater strain on existing infrastructure. By his estimate, an A1 subdivision would allow for 350 to 400 homes (four houses per acre, plus streets) compared to the 800 residences Spinosa plans for Rouzan plus businesses, the school, the church and the library.
“You need to have a path to a solution before you approve the problem. … Perkins Road is just about bursting. How big of a crisis are we going to create?” Kisling says.
But Metro Councilman Mickey Skyring, who represents the area, says he supports the project, which may indicate that opposition is not widespread. At an Oct. 18 public meeting attended by nearly 100 area residents, many expressed anger that they didn’t know more about the project and espoused typical concerns about traffic and drainage, but others actually seemed excited about having the TND next door. One man stood up and announced that he had lived in Southdowns since 1961 and supported the project, and about half the room applauded.
Spinosa says about 20% of residents’ trips will be inside the development, eliminating the need to use Perkins or Lee Drive. He also argues that multiple entrance and exits points will spread the traffic out and minimize congestion. Nine roads dead end at the property line, and Spinosa plans to connect to every one.
“Connectivity is the key,” says Richard Barker of Stuart Avenue, a city planner and former Southside board member. He stepped down in 2004 out of frustration with other members’ refusal to consider supporting something other than a conventional subdivision for the Ford property. Others who felt the same way were summarily voted off. “The plans I have seen are very good plans, as far as the street pattern is concerned. … I think it’s extremely viable for this area,” he says.
“The unified development code requires connected streets,” says Rachel DiResto, vice president of the Center for Planning Excellence in Baton Rouge. But the requirement is “typically and repeatedly waived through the planning process due to citizen opposition. … Neighborhoods that have less traveled streets suddenly may see more cars on their streets. The trade off (of all those waivers) is that the rest of us sit in traffic,” she says.
Kisling and Southside Civic Association secretary Pam Perkins, who also opposes the zoning change, say they would be open to supporting an A1 subdivision with connectivity, although the board has not taken an official stance on that issue. But both say all those connecting neighborhood streets eventually just dump their traffic onto Perkins, Lee or Hyacinth, all heavily traveled routes.
Swimming upstream
Spinosa’s competition might have helped pave the way for Rouzan. Richard Carmouche is already building Willow Grove, the city’s first TND, on Perkins Road about halfway between Bluebonnet Boulevard and Siegen Lane. Only it’s not technically a TND because that zoning didn’t exist when he proposed the project about three years ago. Officially it’s a planned unit development (PUD).
Carmouche took pains to explain the concept to city officials and residents, at one point sponsoring a field trip to River Ranch for the planning commission. Still, he was only allowed to get one tie-in to an existing street, rather than the three he was hoping for.
“If we were fighting it now, maybe we would have had better luck,” Carmouche says. “We spent so much time trying to explain it, and we spent another year trying to get zoning on it.” Today, it would fit into the TND zone, he says.
“Sometimes I look over my shoulder and wonder why we’re doing all this,” Conway says. He figures they could just go in and carve up the Ford property as a conventional neighborhood and sell out in short order, rather than dragging things out over the next five years, not to mention the two years they’ve already spent planning and laying the groundwork with local officials and dealing with suspicious neighborhood groups. A mixed-use development might be more profitable, but is it really worth the headaches?
“If I wanted to get in and get out quick, I would have already done it,” Spinosa says. He developed CitiPlace in the 1990s, which he calls the city’s first mixed-use development. His current glamour project is Perkins Rowe, which also follows the TND principle of living, working, shopping and entertainment in one development.
“He has a proven track record of producing quality developments,” says appraiser Wesley Moore of Cook, Moore and Associates. “It’s hard to say he’s going to come in and trash the neighborhood.”
“It’s a battle we fight every day,” Spinosa says. “We have a passion about it.” But Spinosa bristles just a bit when asked if Rouzan will be his legacy project.
“I hope I have plenty more to come. I’m not that old.”
Comments
Posted by richyb on October 22, 2007 at 4:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This project sounds almost too good to be true. I hope this goes thru?? This prime real estate deserves something special! Unfortunately only more of the same ole' boring subdivisions will do for many Baton Rougeans. BR needs more street connectivity; why does nearly every new subdivision have to be chopped-up, broken, or seperated from one another??
What a great concept of a mixed-use village with donated land for a new badly needed Southdowns library branch. Coldwater Creek will really add to the look and feel. More density is needed in the city's core as the suburbs continue to sprawl.
Thanks to Mr.Spinosa for adding some flair to the Capitol City with CitiPlace and the highly anticipated Perkins Rowe urban village! I hope he can still pull off a condo tower there to set it off. People like Mr. Spinosa help make BR a legit mid-sized city and not the overgrown country town many locals want to keep.
Posted by KateMcLean on October 25, 2007 at 8:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is a wonderful concept, and long needed for Baton Rouge. It's high time this city and its residents started thinking differently and breaking free from the stodgy past. One thing will hamper the sucess of this project as much as the reluctance of the nearby nieghborhood, that is the deplorable Lee Drive. The Southside Civic Association has continually blocked the 4-laning of Lee Drive. If there was ever a traffic juggernaut, it is the stretch of Lee Drive between Higland Road and Perkins Road. With the extraordinary number of cars entering and leaving LSU's campus, the high number of residents and other business traffic in the area it is unthinkable that Lee Drive continue as an undersized, dinky, two-lane road. The right-of-way is available, the new bridge over Bayou DuPlantier is large enough for 4 lanes, portions of the street on opposite ends of the 2-lane stretch are already 4-laned. The traffic is already there, 4-laning Lee Drive would simply move the existing traffic more efficiently, and perhaps faster. I live, shop, bank and have children attend school all in an area between Kennilworth, the Perkins Road Overpass and Highland Road. I cannot travel through this area without sitting in extremely frustrating traffic tie-ups on Lee or Perkins. Stanford was 4-laned decades ago and is a success. Yes, there will be construction, yes, there will be temporary inconvenience. However, the completed project would revive a fading city neighborhood and improve circulation in a vital part of South Baton Rouge. Bring on Spinosa's TND, bring on the new blood, new ideas and changes, especially those as well thought out as Rouzan appears to be. Baton Rouge is ready. Perhaps if we made things better in our town, young people would want to stay and live here instead of leaving the state? Bravo Tommy, Bravo!
Posted by fourx5 on October 25, 2007 at 11:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I wouldn't trust Kisling farther than I could throw him; he talks on one hand at Forum 35 meetings about how to make Baton Rouge more attractive to young professionals, but quails at the thought of sullying the walled gardens of South Baton Rouge with mixed-use spaces.
It's time to get Baton Rouge out of the 20th century; mixed use is the wave of the future, and Kisling's way of thinking is strictly old world.
Posted by fourx5 on October 25, 2007 at 12:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
...I'd also add that by opposing a TND like Rouzan, South side residents are simply making more traffic and trouble for themselves.
When we lived in Baton Rouge, I found walking anywhere (the store, shops, etc.) besides downtown and the LSU campus to be virtually impossible. So I'd get on the road along with thousands of other people, simply to travel two blocks for a half-gallon of milk.
Why didn't I walk? Because there are no sidewalks on Highland road between Lee and Bluebonnet and because the subdivision I was in had only a single outlet, despite several nearby parallel streets.
Without sidewalks and connected developments, all traffic is forced onto wildly overburdened streets like Lee, Burbank, and Highland.
I suppose all that traffic, trouble, and congestion gives southside residents something else to complain about between shopping and running the kids to private school in their giant SUVs, but the rest of us would like to see Baton Rouge move forward as a productive and modern city.
South Side Civic Association - stay outta this. Enjoy your walled gardens and let the rest of us move forward as a real community - not just a collection of sterile neighborhoods.
Posted by fourx5 on October 26, 2007 at 11:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The more I learn about it, the more the Southside Civic Association sounds like the "I got mine, now go to hell" club.
Fine with me. Enjoy sitting in traffic half the day trying to get into your neighborhood, and hone those complaining sills - you'll need them when it comes time to finally improve the infrastructure you've insisted on neglecting for the past thirty years.
Posted by planarch on October 26, 2007 at 3:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Since some background information is warranted, Traditional Neighborhood Developments (TNDs) are based on the planning concept typically identified as New Urbanism. In turn, New Urbanism incorporates the initiatives commonly identified as “Sustainable and/or Green Design,” so that a TND community includes: Compact/Walkable neighborhoods; A clearly defined center with civic spaces that include small retailers that support the local residents; Interconnected streets with few (if any) parking lots that are placed away from “sight lines;” A mix of housing options; and Green spaces.
Although it is difficult to argue against those concepts, they do become problematic when a TND community is planned for a residential area. The issues include the lot sizes, vehicular traffic, the civic and commercial uses, and the compatibility of traditional architecture with the adjacent neighborhoods. Fortunately these are not new points of contention, and there are a host of TND communities throughout the US that have addressed those issues in a manner that was acceptable to both the developers and the affected neighborhoods. In addition, recent research is starting to come in supportive of the TND ideas, such as a study in the American Planning Association Journal titled “Testing the Claims of New Urbanism”.
Some studies have shown that a major point of contention has been the integration of the new development with an existing residential community. The issue is the proposed “tie-in” of TND streets to the existing street-grid of the adjacent neighborhoods since this would naturally translate into increased vehicular traffic. This matter can be ameliorated if the developer demonstrates that there will always be an increase in traffic. So that the issue is not an increase in vehicular traffic, but whether the residents would rather have increased gridlock in major arteries such as Lee Drive and Perkins, or have traffic “filter” through minor streets.
Although most residents may hark back to a time when the south-side of Lee Drive was considered semi-rural, it is now geographically located in an urban context, and the reality is that Rouzan IS in an urban context. And the idea of neighborhood connectivity has been particularly successful since elderly residents and children find the “novel” concept of SIDEWALKS and FRONT-PORCHES as both physically and socially rewarding.
So what is the problem presented by Rouzan? It appears that there was limited communication. If this is the case, this violates what could be considered the overriding tenet of a TND: That it is a participative and inclusive process. I believe that it is not too late for a cooperative and constructive dialogue to evolve, given that the TND positives far outweigh the negatives; particularly the fact that the when TNDs have been constructed, a direct consequence has been an increase in property values for the neighboring communities.
Posted by katowoman on November 2, 2007 at 10:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I live on Arrowhead Street one block away from the Ford Property. I do not drive an SUV and do not have a walled garden. :)
I don't necessarily object to the proposal, but I do object to the fact that there has been nothing done to demonstrate that my street will stay safe and the integrity of my neighborhood upheld.
I understand those from the outside of my neighborhood being frustrated by the traffic situations that exist on Highland, Lee, and Perkins, but I do not understand or appreciate your judgement and stereotyping of residents within the Southside neighborhood.
Rouzan plans appear well thought out and have potential to take that particular section of the city forward. However, from what I understand from the presented plans, they are not in balance with the structure of my neighborhood. Basically, the connectivity of the streets from a "pedestrian friendly" Rouzan would be into streets without sidewalks or speed controls. I invite you to come stand in the front of my house during peak traffic hours and feel the breeze of the speeding cars cutting through my street. Please imagine my concern about more cars coming through to "alleviate" the traffic conditions of the area. We are not designed to lighten the load of the main arteries, and until I see that Mr. Spinosa, the planning commission, and other involved organizations have completed research and made definite plans to best manage that situation, I do not feel comfortable supporting the plans.
Someone mentioned moving ahead as a "real community". I believe that can only happen if judgements stop and we all work together in understanding the full impact, positive and negative, this will have on the area. Jumping on the bandwagon celebrating a new design as the salvation of Baton Rouge can have the same consequences as saying NO to any change whatsoever.
Like planarch said, let's push for dialogue and open communication for a more "participative and inclusive process."
Posted by Fred on November 3, 2007 at 9:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What a great opportunity to take the Southdowns area from being a nice neighborhood to being a great neighborhood. TND is not a new concept, but a revised concept of how neighborhoods were built before automobiles became so popular. When you look at the most desirable neighborhoods in this country most are anchored around what now would be considered a TND.
With urban sprawl being the major cause for the traffic problems we experience today we as a community need to look to tested and true ways to reduce the need to travel long distances from our homes in order to conduct our daily lives (work, shopping, etc.). Sure, one TND in my neighborhood won’t fix the problem, but this will be the third TND in the area and with many more on the way, it’s a great start.
There will be more traffic, but most of the small business and residential traffic will flow in the path of least resistance, which will be the three accesses at Perkins Road. I think it will be great to be able to conduct more of my personal business by driving only a few blocks (perhaps even walk on nice days) into “Rousan” than having to travel miles across busy roads as I do now.
Posted by urbnplnnr on November 3, 2007 at 12:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Katowoman talks about speeding problems on her street. Here are a few suggestions for those experiencing the same. Try starting a dialogue with the city and the police. Go to your civic association board for help and advice. They should be knowledgable about all this - that's what they're there for. In the short term, they can help by arranging for periodic speed traps. The long term help involves the city.
Which brings me to the issue I keep hearing in our neighborhood that katowoman expressed as "Basically, the connectivity of the streets from a "pedestrian friendly" Rouzan would be into streets without sidewalks or speed controls." I don't think the answer is to keep building and planning in the same way (A-1 only development) that has created the problem in the first place. That would be like saying "I have problems on my street so everyone else should too." I'm certain the neighbors don't feel that way, but what they don't realize is that is exactly what they will create in opposing the TND.
We have to start with responsible planning somewhere and this TND is a good start. What I suggest is that we build upon that great start and pull together as a community to fix the rest of our neighborhood. One simple way to do this is to work with the city to get sidewalks on all of our streets and to get our streets restriped in order to make room for a bike lane or street parking. This has the effect of narrowing the streets and works as a traffic calming device - ideas taken from the TND concept. This way we can all enjoy a pedestrian-friendly environment and safer streets. Any traffic from Rouzan will flow into streets of the same design, eliminating the concern expressed above. And remember, there will be so many multiple routes people can take because of the connectivity that we won't need to worry that it all (or even a lot) will come down our particular street.
It is the advent of the residential-only subdivision model (separation of uses), combined with the Federal Interstate Highway act and affordable cars that has created the traffic mess, the reduced sense of community, the environmental degradation, the inefficient land usage, the public health obesity crisis, etc., etc. . . . that we find ourselves experiencing today. What people don't often realize is that responsible planning has implications and effects far greater than just what is built in our backyards. Improving our planning and building practices throughout the city(the TND model can help) is about creating economic vitality, environmental sustainability, and improved public health for all of BR. Instead of fighting against the TND, let's work with it by using some of its concepts to help improve our own neighborhoods. That combined effort will go a long way to improving our quality of life throughout Southdowns.
Posted by fourx5 on November 5, 2007 at 11:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Katowoman: You make couple of good points - yes, this should be studied, but it appears to be a well-researched and thought out development.
While you may not drive an SUV, I was trying to make a larger point with my stereotype of oblivious, self-absorbed suburb dwellers. Rather than trying to understand that a TND would be beneficial for the city as a whole, your only concern seems to be with how it's going to affect you. It's this blind self-absorption that's led to all of the no outlet developments and traffic problems Baton Rouge has now.
We've had TNDs in California now for many years. They help alleviate traffic (when combined with decent mass transit, which Baton Rouge must develop), encourage neighborly get-togethers, and reduce crime. If you're so concerned with the impact of speeders, have the city install speed lumps to slow traffic while maintaining accessibility for emergency vehicles.
For a region that wears Christian religions on its sleeve, I have to admit that Baton Rouge seems to have the highest number of deeply selfish people of any area I've lived in. Try thinking of how a TND might benefit the city instead of wishing for more suburban enclaves cut off from the rest of the world.
Posted by katowoman on November 5, 2007 at 3:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Fourx5, I completely appreciate where you are coming from as I am a transplant from Central NJ. I lived in an urban setting where I was able to walk to do my shopping, laundry, dining, school, attend the university, and utilize public transportation to get into NYC, Philadelphia, and the surrounding cities, etc. I also witnessed the detrimental effects of rampid suburban sprawl throughout the state at the unfortunate loss of many of our green spaces and sense of community.
When moving here we selected a location close to the university, shopping, and downtown in hopes of having that connection with the flow of the city and its people. The last thing we wanted to experience was the separation of that in a complete suburban setting. We were happy to find the Southdowns neighborhood which provided a balance that we were looking for. Safety and minimal traffic flow on our street was a must as we have a young child, and we also consider walking and visiting with our neighbors an integral part of quality of life.
Believe me that I'd love to see the traffic situation on Perkins and Lee alleviated and this city becoming more green in their approaches to daily life. However, I do not see, yet, how the development of this one TND in this one location is going to benefit the overall city at the expense of the integrity of this neighborhood, as well as the overall functioning of the the Perkins, Lee, Glasgow, and Hyacinth areas. It's not just about me but about all of the commuters and business people that travel through this area everyday to get where they have to be. Call that self-absorbed if you will, I just consider it wise in making sure that I'm not signing onto something that hasn't been demonstrated as logical and practical in this space and time.
I'm very interested in your insights into the matter considering that you have TND experience. If you take a look at the following files, you will see what has been submitted by JTS about the project. Is it similar to what you have seen in CA? I know that BR,LA and CA are of different mindscapes and culture, but it's interesting to consider.
http://www.southsideca.org/uploads/Appli...
http://www.southsideca.org/uploads/Gener...
http://www.southsideca.org/uploads/Rouza...
http://www.southsideca.org/uploads/Rouza...
Posted by katowoman on November 5, 2007 at 3:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you too urbanplanner and Fred in sharing your insights about the matter. Our dialogue is important in understanding the proposal and its impact overall. In an ideal world it would be great if the Rouzan planning was done in conjunction with working on our streets to make that TND vision truly work, don't you think? The seed of that concept is nowhere to be seen in their plans as they've been presented to date.
Fred, I'd like to benefit from Rouzan retail as well, but let's not jump in our cars to do so. We are then defeating part of the purpose of the TND design of alleviating non-residential traffic. I wonder how many other non-Rouzan residents will be using their cars to travel there.
Posted by katowoman on November 5, 2007 at 3:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I hope to be able to meet the posters here as well as people from within the Southdowns area this Wednesday night.
***NOTICE***
Public Meeting to be HeldWednesday, November 7th
JTS will be hosting a neighborhood open house at the Marriott Baton Rouge on Wednesday, November 7th from 4:00 pm to 8:00 pm for residents of those neighborhoods that surround the proposed Rouzan Traditional Neighborhood (formerly known as the Ford Property). JTS representatives will be on hand from 4:00 pm till 8:00 pm to discuss the new Rouzan community and to answer questions from residents. Experts will be available for discussions and to gather community input throughout the evening on topics of interest including community design, traffic and drainage. Come for thirty minutes or stay for the entire four hours. We hope to see you there.
Posted by urbnplnnr on November 5, 2007 at 6:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
katowoman, can you further explain what you mean by "it would be great if the Rouzan planning was done in conjunction with working on our streets to make that TND vision truly work, don't you think? The seed of that concept is nowhere to be seen in their plans as they've been presented to date"? I'm not sure how correcting our streets in the rest of the neighborhood is the responsibility of JTS. Isn't that our responsibility? As it is, JTS is already planning to put in sidewalks on Glasgow - something they certainly don't have to do, but that would benefit us. JTS shouldn't have to pay for failures of the city (and our failures as well, for not doing something about it).
And as I said before, one TND will not solve all of our problems, but it can begin to start to mitigate some of them. And just because it can't solve everything, doesn't mean we shouldn't embrace it for what it can do. I think the rest of us need to step up to the plate and take responsibilty to start doing our share in working on our neighborhoods.
I don't know where your experience or interests lie, but I do know that it is hard for people who do not have a lot of knowledge of planning to understand that this will be "logical and practical." When you are not used to looking at and understanding traffic numbers, they can certainly seem overwhelming. But Rouzan has to go through city/parish planning and DPW before it can even go for a vote with the Planning Commissioners. If DPW and the city planners did not think it was doable and reasonable at this time, (they have to approve it first)it would never make it to the PC.
I must say that it is really wonderful to hear a neighbor actually trying to get information and understand what is being proposed. I am afraid too many are just listening to the anti-TND propaganda being spread thru the neighborhood without actually getting the facts for themselves. I encourage you to keep learning and to be wary of the misinformation and distortions that are flying thru Southdowns.
Lastly, I hate to see you so worried about the integrity of our neighborhood. I think the more information you gain, the more you will realize how much this TND will actually help our neighborhood - the value it will add to both our quality of life and our property values is really immeasurable.
Posted by Fred on November 5, 2007 at 7:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Boy O'Boy the SCA (Southside Civic Association) are up to their old tried and true scare tactics, they must be getting very scared.
Driving home this evening I saw a hugh hand made sign that said something like "Rousan 9000 Car per Day Increase...".
No where does it say something like "A1 Plan 7000 Car per Day Increase with Absolutely No Benefit to the Neighborhood."
Posted by fourx5 on November 6, 2007 at 7:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ah yes, the last refuge of the NIMBYs: yard signs.
I wonder how many millions of hours per year are lost to Baton Rouge businesses while employees and deliverypeople are stuck in horrific Baton Rouge traffic?
Too bad it's all so that people like Chris Kisling and katowoman can say "I got here first".
Posted by KateMcLean on November 12, 2007 at 2:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
katowoman needs to live on Stanford Avenue where the cars drive by at sometimes greater than 60mph (more than a slight breeze) and the SSCA people come along and REMOVE the signs for Rouzan supporters. Very adult behavior.
Posted by les70808 on November 12, 2007 at 2:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Please do not comment on what you think Southdown needs unless you live in that neighborhood or have some strong tie to Southdowns. Because though Baton Rouge might benefit from the diversity of a THD, craming a THD into the already traffic-ridden Southdown roads will do nothing but cheapen the housing value and make it more of a hassle to get to and from home.
Posted by urbnplnnr on November 12, 2007 at 5:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Dear les70808: I do live in Southdowns. I have to say that that I don't have a problem with people holding a different opinion than I do. I do regret, though, that so many in the neighborhood are forming their opinions based on incorrect information. I could easily fill a page with the number of inaccurate statements I have heard from my neighbors regarding this development that are being spread around as fact.
In addition, the new website against Rouzan is also filled with misinformation. I think it is a disservice to all neighbors to be claiming that this site offers "facts." A simple check would reveal the inaccuracies on this site. What I can't understand is why people do not bother to get the correct information for themselves. I would think that something as important as this proposal, something so many are so passionate about, would prompt people to do their own research and get the facts, rather than relying on what they hear. As an urban planner and a neighbor, I find this disturbing.
If people would do their research, they would find that in fact, TNDs RAISE property values (not cheapen housing values) and that an A-1 only subdivision will greatly increase traffic as well as make it "more of a hassle to get to and from home." In this respect, A-1 only is a much worse proposition than a TND, so the traffic arguments make no sense. But the planning commissioners will recognize that.
Also, les70808, the correct intials are TND, not THD.
Posted by Jon_Deaux on November 12, 2007 at 5:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Dear urbnplnnr: You have invested a substantial amount of time with your comments to this article. You also noted that there was “misinformation” and “inaccuracies” in the site developed. I’d appreciate it if you would expound.
I lived off East Lakeshore during the period when the old Wal-Mart was located on Perkins. If this traffic scenario is what the residents are hopping to avoid I most certainly sympathize.
I agree that there is a place for the TND’s but what is disheartening to me is that in locations where they would benefit Baton Rouge most they are not developed. Please, please Mr. Spinosa, come to Mid-City or Old South Baton Rouge. Why are these developments only done in “safe” urban areas and the suburbs…..$$$$ maybe.
Posted by Fred on November 12, 2007 at 6:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Jon_Deaux, I too am a resident of Southdowns. I don’t want to give away my exact location because thanks to all the misconceptions that are literally flying around the neighborhood, thanks to our lovely civic board, I am honestly scared of repercussions. But I will say that I live off of Glasgow, between Sweetbriar and Perkins. Let me take a shot at your comments.
Per the Stop Rousan site…
“Because the integrity and livability of the surrounding neighborhoods matter” This sounds more like an argument for a TND not against, but what the heck let’s see if we can get people concerned.
“Because flooding from already-overflowing sewers and drainage ditches matters….” By law this is a matter that will be addressed by the developer and will help eliminate the problem not add to it, but once again it sure sounds good.
“Because the impact of 800 residential units and 100,000 square feet of commercial space in an already-congested area matters....” True statement, but the plan actual calls for 45,000 square feet of office space, 5,000 square feet of retail space and 10,000 square feet of restaurants, cafés and delis. It also will contain a 20,000-square-foot library, 100-student Montessori school, a church and 23 acres of open space, including a village green and small parks. But this doesn’t raise the emotions of the local residences as much as saying 100,000 sqft of commercial.
“Because the shadow of a multi-story apartment building looming over your house matters….” Well actually it won’t loom over anyone’s house and will be well hidden from the neighbors with the use of green space, but looming sounds so more threating.
“Because a broken city planning process (one that allows rezoning prior to studies to determine the impacts of the rezoning) matters.....” I would have to agree with this one, but this has nothing to do with the development. The problem is that developers have to submit the worse case for rezoning purposes and then once rezoned, they have to submit the final plan.
“Because one developer forcing the consequences of his tightly packed concept on thousands of residents who are raising their families and have invested their savings in the area they love matters….” All I can say to this one is… One good statement to rally the troops but is solely based on opinion and not fact.
Posted by urbnplnnr on November 12, 2007 at 7:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You are right and it is time I don't have. But I believe it is important for people to have the right information and that is part of my job as a planner. There is too much on the site to respond to, as I said, people should do their own research rather than believing what someone else tells them - that includes what I say. But at the risk of being accused of dodging the question, I will address a couple of quick points.
The site claims "Unlike other cities, we’re going to place our first TND in the middle of a heavily congested area" and with that "the density proposed for Rouzan is higher than most TNDs" and "in addition, most of these [TNDs] fall more in outlying areas." Where to begin? First, TNDs were created as infill development, not greenfield (or outlying areas) as that defeats the purpose of combating sprawl. They were meant for locations just like our situation. Second, there are 383 TND communities in 35 states (& DC) and 11 countries (including 10 in LA. And this is not BR's, nor the greater BR area's 1st TND. To say the density proposed for Rouzan is higher "than most TNDs" is just a completely uninformed statement. I doubt seriously the writer examined all 383 (+ the ones in other countries) TNDs. Next, OVER 50% of Rouzan is low density single family residential (this is required by our TND ordinance). The two 1/2 extra units per acre only exist in less than half of the development. And it is also obvious that these (or this) writer is using the term "Smart Growth" incorrectly. If that person had a clear understanding of the Smart Growth priniciples and the issues involved as well as the implications for more responsible planning, they would realize that Rouzan is EXACTLY what we need. And not just our neighborhood, but the city as a whole. I could go on, but the # of words for comments is limited. People need to really understand what they are fighting against and do the research for themselves. And what, people don't think an A-1 Subdivision is going to funnel a lot of traffic to Lee and Perkins? The TND form is the only zoning that can help mitigate the traffic problem.
Lastly, Jon_Deaux, I agree. We do need public/private partnerships for TNDs in Mid-City and OSBR. But that doesn't mean our neighborhood cannot benefit as well. If the people fight agains TNDs all the time, though, what developer is going to put one in those areas you mention?
Posted by Jon_Deaux on November 12, 2007 at 7:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I appreciate both of your responses & I most certainly feel the passion from both sides of this issue. I no longer live in the area and have no stake apart from fond memories. What caught my attention from the site was the density per acre number and it was this that I hoped was misstated.
Although I consider these type developments great in some areas I don’t accept them as the “end all” for every area. Please make sure that this is what your really want. As I said in my previous comment I’d love to see these developments in Mid City and Old South Baton Rouge where they could revitalize established areas. I’ll praise Mr. Spinosa and the like when I see that happen.
I wish for your awesome neighborhood the absolute best!!
Posted by fourx5 on November 13, 2007 at 1:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Les70808 wrote:"Please do not comment on what you think Southdown needs unless you live in that neighborhood or have some strong tie to Southdowns."
In other words, "we don't need your informed opinions about our neighborhood. We got here first, and we got ours."
Nice attitude. Did people complain when higher density developments for old people and students went up in south Baton Rouge?
Maybe if some of these people fighting against Rousan looked beyond their misplaced and misinformed concerns, they'd realize that adding housing diversity will increase the value of their homes. As for traffic - blame your attitude and lack of vision for the current situation, which will get worse, not better as long as you continue to fight against any and all change. (Allowing a giant Wal-Mart on a street that has six stoplights in a half mile...who thought that was a good idea? Close the cross streets, take down some lights, and get College Drive moving!)
You're going to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 1990s whether you like it or not, and spreading lies while complaining about problems that stem from your own inaction over the years just confirms that many of Baton Rouge's citizens are committed only to holding the city back.
Posted by por_deni on November 13, 2007 at 2:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The most intriguing anti-Rouzan signs scattered around my home are the ones about increased traffic.
The traffic problems on our major arteries will be solved when each individual takes responsibility for his own transportation choices.
Rouzan will attract residents of a different mindset, hopefully ones who will seriously consider using public transportation.
Several bus lines are routed on Perkins Road and are active most hours of the day and seven days per week. The more users, the more revenue, and the more improvement that can be made to the system.
If even a quarter of the Southdowns, University Gardens and Rouzan residents got out of their cars and on to the bus to go to work, congestion would be reduced.
Traffic is not Tommy Spinosa's problem to solve single-handedly; it is yours if you are not consciously making the choice to mitigate your part of the mess.
Posted by anonymous on November 13, 2007 at 5:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Against. It is in the middle of single family traditional neighborhoods. This is not Philadelphia or New Jersey. This is all about more money for Spinoza. He will say whatever it takes to make more money. It is a strip shopping center with apartment buildings (absentee owners) and dense housing. It will be zoned TND which includes liquor stores and bars (zone CAB-2) in the middle of nice existing family neighborhoods where children ride their bikes.
In Citiplace where is the high rise garage he promised and the resulting open green spaces where people can walk? He will not do what he says he will. There will be no library. He is not bound to do that.
There will be traffic and flooding. The parking lot at Glassgow Middle School already floods and this will make it worse. Pollard Estates floods along Dawson Creek and this will make that worse. His people contradict themselves. One says they will solve Glassgow by speeding up the flow of water and the other says they will solve Pollard by slowing down the flow.
Southddowns is coming back since the number of rental units has dropped. Baton Rouge is a great city with nice neighborhoods. It does not sprawl. There is plenty of vacant land close in to the city. Go out Burbank and Nicholson. This TND will not stop the people who want to move out to Livingston. Why mess the nice exiting neighborhoods with dense housing? Baton Rouge is not crowded. Why make it crowded.
Posted by Fred on November 13, 2007 at 6:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Anonymous, Thank-you.
You're statements are a perfect example of what others have been posting about the misinformation that is being spread in the neighborhood. This is a perfect example of people beliving what they are told and not getting the facts for themselves.
P.S. The stop rouzan sight is highly bias and not recommended for those searching for the truth.
Posted by Jon_Deaux on November 13, 2007 at 6:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Anonymous, a little too much common sense in your comments. Understand, this style of development has a philosophy and an agenda that does not include your kids. In disbelief and with a big ole simile the developers are riding it all the way to the bank.
We are not Philadelphia or New Jersey (or Portland for that matter), nor do we care to be. Baton Rouge is and wishes to remain a family oriented city.
Posted by Fred on November 13, 2007 at 6:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
por_deni, very good comments.
Posted by Fred on November 13, 2007 at 6:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Jon_Deaux, you obviously have never been to a TND.
Posted by Jon_Deaux on November 13, 2007 at 6:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Not true at all Fred. I actually like urban settings but I’m not so self absorbed and arrogant to push my view on the majority that does not feel this way. And again, I’m tired of the praise to Mr. Spinosa like he is some great pioneer. Bring your TND’s to Mid City or OSBR where they are needed and I will most certainly eat crow (and be trilled to do so).
Posted by Fred on November 13, 2007 at 8:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Jon, I don't mean to beat a dead horse but I don't think you understand what TNDs are... TNDs and Urban areas are not the same. TNDs are much more kid and family friendly than A-1 subdivisions. Louisiana already has 10 TNDs with two more being built, one off of Perkins Road called Willow Grove and the other in Port Allen called Riverview.
I'm not trying to push my views onto anyone. But what disapoints me is there are so many people that don't understand what TNDs are. They don't take the time to find out the facts. Then they spread false information trying to justify why they don't want a TND in their neighborhood.
As far as Mr Spinosa is concerned I have heard both good and bad, like any other human. He does however appear to being doing a poor job of getting the message out about what this project is and is not.
Posted by Jon_Deaux on November 13, 2007 at 9:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Fred: To beat that horse again yes, River Ranch and yes, I’ve researched them. And as I said there is an entire philosophy and agenda behind the TND’s and New Urbanism. I do not want Baton Rouge to become New York City. I think TND’s are wonderful closer to the core of downtown where high population density developments are needed. But in Southdowns it is questionable and I do understand the opposition. Mr. Spinosa could at least compromise with the level of population density.
And again I think this concept is exploited by developers who now have broad approval to create these high population density developments in places where they should not be (and even call it “Smart Growth”).
My comment about “pushing views” was a general comment not meant specifically for you. I promise, I only want what’s best for Baton Rouge…I love this city and that area is awesome!!
Posted by katowoman on November 14, 2007 at 3:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Fred and urbanplanner, thank you for striving towards clarification of misconceptions. I believe that during this stretch of time before December 10 it is important that those against and in support of Rouzan continue to educate themselves through research.
Have you ever heard of factcheck.org? I think that it would be helpful to have a similar blog/site dedicated towards listing links, resources, contact people, facts, etc. about Rouzan, TNDs and the challenges faced concerning this proposal.
I've been making contact with the ITE, DPW, as well as architects and planners of Rouzan, like Looney Ricks Kiss Architects (lrk.com), in order to pose questions and have concerns clarified. I have sent in questions to rouzan.net in hopes that the answers would be published in their FAQ. These things take time as well as a separation from the elevated stress levels associated with it, but it's a start.
Any other suggestions that you have would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
Posted by Papadeaux on November 14, 2007 at 8:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I have been watching this comment section for sometime since it appears to be the only place that people can express their thoughts on this TND proposed for the old Ford Farm. I'm a resident of Southdowns and live very close to the old farm. I’m for this project if the developer would build it more to scale of the neighborhood.
What has upset me the most is the lack of coverage the people for this project has received. I was watching the news last night and it appears that someone went around the neighborhood last night tearing down some of the anti Rouzan signs. This is terrible and I think everyone has the right to express his or her opinion.
But nowhere did anyone mention the hundreds of signs that were torn down on Saturday morning the people FOR the project posted around the neighborhood. KateMcLean noted in an earlier post she saw the SSCA people tearing them down. I don’t know who did this but I do know it happened. I noticed the signs going up Friday and by Friday evening they were everywhere as I drove through the whole neighborhood to see. The next morning when I was driving to the store, I noticed they were gone around my home. Once again I drove through the neighborhood and it looked like they had all been torn down.
The SSCA President was on the news last night saying stuff about freedom of speech and even added a comment about “massacred by the cowards in the night. “ on his website. Well it sounds like both sides have cowards that do their dirty work in the night.
If the SSCA President is so concern about freedom of speech, why has he not condoned the behavior of his members. Sometimes I wonder if Southdowns is becoming 1939 Germany.
Posted by urbnplnnr on November 14, 2007 at 9:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
katowoman, I am very impressed by your commitment to find out the facts for yourself and then form your opinion. That is all I am asking that our neighbors do. Websites like the stop Rouzan one that claim to post facts are not helping the situation. They post opinions and misinformation, as well as selectively post information which does not give you all the info you need to properly evaluate the situation. For instance, you cannot compare the densities of Rouzan with other TNDs like River Ranch. This is just another example of people being ill-informed or uninformed. River Ranch is almost three times the size in acreage of Rouzan and so has the size to include many estate lots. When you figure that into the mix, it brings their overall density figures down and so it appears that Rouzan is denser, when actually, that is not the case. This also means you do not compare overall densities, you compare densities for each land usage type.
katowoman, I suggest you check out the www.NewPartners.org website. This is about the annual Smart Growth conference and can give you info about the latest issues which you can then research further if you like. You will learn why the CDC, the EPA, the U.S. Department of Defense, and others are all involved in these types of better planning models.
Most people do not realize that this is a much bigger issue than just what goes into our backyard (although a TND will greatly improve our backyard too). Planning can help mitigate situations such as our public health crisis (obesity and obesity related illnesses such as heart disease, diabetes, cancer, etc.) and the state of our environment (every little step we take just adds to all the other steps until we reach critical mass which makes the biggest impact). TNDs also help the economic stability and vitality of our community and city (TNDs offer huge quality of life improvements which attract businesses, economic development and investment for the city as a whole - and keep our young, talented residents from moving elsewhere to get what we are not providing). And why is the Dept. of Defense involved? Because TNDs have an impact on homeland security by taking the first steps toward reducing our dependence on foreign oil. And there are many more implications we must consider.
TNDs also foster community, and with that comes safety and reduced crime as well as the many other benefits it gives us. The only legitimate critique I have heard regarding TNDs is that they are so wildly popular and demand so far greater than supply, that the prices go up and make it difficult for some to afford to live in them. If these developments are so much in demand, I fail to see how people here can say no one wants one. (post cont'd below.)
Posted by urbnplnnr on November 14, 2007 at 9:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
(cont'd from above: Despite the loud noise put forth by a relatively small few (when you consider the affected population), there are a huge number of proponents right in our very neighborhood - people who want to live there because of the enhanced quality of life it will offer. Why don't they speak up more? Simple, too many of us have been harassed, insulted, and even subject to intimidation tactics by those who oppose Rouzan. The opponents of Rouzan talk about our right to free speech. However I think they think it only applies to them as they are quashing every attempt to present the other side. What their stop rouzan website conveniently failed to mention is that long before a few of the opponents’ signs were removed and some frustrated person took a saw to one, the proponents put up hundreds of signs for Rouzan. By the next morning, they were torn down and REPLACED by various Reject Rouzan signs. But they don't tell you that part. How is that free speech?
To Jon_Deaux and others who think this way, TNDs were created for just EXACTLY this type of existing, established neighborhood infill development. It is a traditional Neighborhood development. Yes there are urban versions that belong in the city core, but there are also neighborhood versions specifically suited to Southdowns, and that is what Rouzan is. This is just an additional example of lack of information. People who are not in the field have a hard time understanding what density figures translate in to in reality.
I am not putting Spinosa up for sainthood as some suggest. But for those who insist he is only doing this for the money, let me ask you a question. Don't you think if he was only interested in making a buck he would have developed an A1 subdivision by now? He could have thrown up some crappy subdivision and have long been raking in the profits. Why in the world would he put up with all this harassment if this was his only motivation? And why would he be putting all this time (over 2 years) and effort (and money) into researching this subject?
Posted by urbnplnnr on November 14, 2007 at 9:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
katowoman, I urge you take a ride out to River Ranch (and NO, I am not making a comparison to Rouzan) on a weekend. Park in the town square, walk around, eat lunch at the Village Market (closed on Sundays) or Cafe Roma, have coffee at CC's and then take a walk all around the neighborhood and see how naturally and nicely the densities spread out from most dense at the square to least dense further out by the river. If you are coming from Johnston down Camellia Boulevard, enter the portion of the development that will be on your right side, where the City Club and CCs (not the drive thru) and the square are. The side with the square is the oldest and most complete. Talk to the residents and ask them what they like and don't like. Talk to the MANY people from surrounding neighborhoods who visit RR all the time to take advantage of the amenities. You can usually find them at CC's for sure. Talk to people who know and experience this life every day. Again, I am not comparing Rouzan to RR, I am simply suggesting it as a way to get more of an understanding of what Rouzan would look like on a MUCH smaller scale.
Katowoman, I think a website such as you suggest and describe is an excellent idea, as opposed to sites like the SCA one and the stop Rouzan one which do not provide any options for interactions such as asking questions, making corrections, etc., and simply “push their views” on the reader. Contact me if you would like to discuss this further. Thanks to all who made it to the end of this long-winded 3-part post and I apologize for the length. There is just so much information out there people do not know about or do not fully understand.
This may be my last post and yes, I am sure many of you will be glad. It seems pointless to try to provide facts and information to people who do not want to hear or to know or to make informed decisions rather than forming reactionary opinions based on misinformation.
Posted by Jon_Deaux on November 14, 2007 at 11:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Urbnplnnr, that’s a mouth full and as predictable as the sun coming up I knew your “bigger issue” opinion would eventually surface. Take a deep breath and consider that it might not be that others don’t understand but that they simply disagree. This is what I’m saying people, this is not only a design concept but a life style concept that is being pushed unopposed in planning commissions throughout the country (regardless to the specifics of the area and all based on exaggerated fear) There are apposing opinions to New Urbanism and as people educate themselves on the pro’s I ask that they please consider the con’s.
You do have a valid point in saying that what was once semi-rural has become semi-urban and some compromise is necessary. But a developer of character (not Mr. Spinosa specifically) has a moral obligation to consider the surrounding areas. An area of primarily single family owned homes has a legitimate right to be concerned. In addition to the potential infrastructural problems, historically speaking multi-story apartment buildings devalue surrounding properties.
Posted by fourx5 on November 14, 2007 at 11:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Somebody call the Waaahmbulance for "Anonymous". (maybe it's Chris Kisling?)
Attitudes like his are the reason Baton Rouge won't and can't move forward at the pace it needs to, no matter how comitted the mayor and other politicians are to making it the next great American city.
Other cities are far ahead and accelerating, attracting youth, jobs, and smart growth, while Baton Rouge plays parochial politics with street access and development and wears outdated attitudes on its sleeve. These attitudes are thanks to citizens like "anonymous" who seem to let fear be their overriding emotion - fear of change, fear of differences, you name it.
You don't want to be Portland? No one's asking you to! Just be a Baton Rouge for the 21st century instead of an underperfoming, mismanaged and poorly-planned state capitol from the 1970s.
Posted by por_deni on November 14, 2007 at 4:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Urbnplnnr, we Baton Rougeans don't even need to burn gas to look at River Ranch, we can use our memories or listen to the reminiscences of our parents and grandparents to understand what a traditional neighborhood should be. Remember when one took the bus to shop and see a movie downtown? Remember when one could walk to the corner store to pick up bread and milk for his mother or a coke for himself? And, gasp, you were just children...allowed to walk the streets...unsupervised?!!! Many write to Smiley with these tales. Why must they only be cherished memories?
TNDs may be a fad, but so were Levittown-style monotonous subdivisions. The pendulum is swinging back to the traditional neighborhood. The demand is there, so let it develop, even if imperfectly. It can be tweaked later. Some other novel idea will come along to supplant it in fifty years anyway.
To John Deaux, Southdowns is not semi-urban. It is URBAN and will be inner city when and if the highway loop is built. Let's keep the economic activity and tax dollars in our immediate area and maintain the value of Southdowns. But single family houses alone cannot, and don't, do all the work. We need mixed use to keep our micro-economy alive.
Oh, by the way, I am going to start a protest to close off the streets from Southdowns to University Gardens. I don't want you people driving through on your way to the Overpass or the Lakes. Those roads are my personal driveways to my house and you can't use them! ;oP
Posted by Jon_Deaux on November 14, 2007 at 6:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Por_deni:
I have those me memories too. My reality growing up included pleasant walks to school with my friends, my father coming home each day for lunch, going to the store where everyone knew me (and my entire extended family for that matter), smiles and hello’s and on and on and on.
Our realities now aren’t so quaint. And as much as we would like it not to be they include an armed robbery just two weeks ago at your “corner store”. They include an incredible increase of child abuse both physical and sexual. And I’m afraid they also include an apartment complexes moving next door devaluing your property.
I hate that there is a loss of innocence but it is the reality. And when you think of those bus rides downtown to see the movie do you also recall who was sitting in the back. I hate the negatives that modern life has brought us but the flip side of that is there is more opportunities than ever before (for all people, not just the ones in the front of the bus) Although I’m included in that number, those “pleasant days of old” were pleasant for a select few….and anyway people died young.
This is not some emotional pipe dream; this is what is moving next door to you. Cheap, prefab stucco looks great for five years then you have a strip mall and an apartment complex. Be sure this is what you want.
Posted by Dot on November 14, 2007 at 7:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
As a lifelong resident of this area, I'd like to say that most of us welcome the idea of a small TND. What the Southside, Pollard and Woodchase Associations are requesting is a reduction in the proposed density -- they are not rejecting the development itself. Mr. Spinosa plans for 801 mixed residences with 100K sq. ft of commercial & 28,500K public use space. If he were to divide the Richland Plantation Subdivision tract into ONLY residences, that would equal 6.75 residences per acre (as Mr. Spinosa projected). With the commercial & public space, I would imagine that the number of residences per acre would increase to 8 or so. That is twice the current standard (4 per acre) for the surrounding neighborhoods. Aside from the traffic study, we're wanting an advanced drainage/sewerage study done (as is suggested in the initial study.) I have raw sewerage in my yard every time we have a hard rain. We call the city out to clear the main line (at least 4 times a year for the past 16 years) & they tell us that the whole system on this side of Perkins is "full of collapsed lines" & needs replacement. With an additional estimated 3000+ folks flushing daily -- I worry about my grandchildren and pets being in the yard!
To address the vandalism issue with the signs. I understand that some paper signs were stapled to the wooden utility posts in the Floyd Place subdivision (part of Southdowns) in opposition to Rouzan. Those flyers were witnessed to be torn down by a Floyd Place resident & replaced with signage in support of Rouzan. The response of a LONE resident (and, no, it was not Mr. Kisling) was to then tear down the Rouzan support flyers, and replace them with more of the opposition flyers.
In any event, public utility poles aren't intended for the use of signs of any sort. If I had my way, these would ALL come down.
However ...
when residents of a community wish to make their voices heard with signs in their OWN YARDS ... that's a different story. When someone enters your property to destroy your property on site, that's called vandalism. The vehicle of the vandal who destroyed personal property ON personal property was identified with a license plate and description (as well as a description of the occupants).
Who is he? Would it surprise you if the vehicle were registered to a BUSINESS? Would a vehicle licensed for BUSINESS USE be conducting this kind of BUSINESS on behalf of the BUSINESS? That would certainly be an unfortunate circumstance for the business owner if that were the case.
Ahhhh, anyway ...
all most of us wanted was a flexible discussion. With Kip Holden mediating, perhaps this proposal can be reworked to a semi-satisfactory conclusion for all parties involved. Heck, I may even retire there once it's done -- if the proposal calls for AFFORDABLE housing!
Posted by Fred on November 14, 2007 at 7:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Jon, I had my suspicions before, but I'm sure now you are either Chris Kisling or a Chris' Clone.
If you had ever spent anytime in a TND, you would know that what Por_deni speaks of is a sense of community and is much stronger in a TND then in a subdivision.
Posted by Papadeaux on November 14, 2007 at 7:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with DOT on every point made. I did not mean to imply that I thought posting of signs on public property was acceptable. I agree signs should only be placed on personal property and out of the right of way. I was only trying to make the point of a double standard.
Who cares who Jon_Deaux is or isn’t. He’s still entitled to his opinion.
Posted by Fred on November 14, 2007 at 8:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Dot are you saying you know who did the damage to personal property? The reason I ask is I know a lot of people who take there company car (has a commerial or business plate) home with them.
Posted by Fred on November 14, 2007 at 11:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Papa, go back and read Jon_Deaux’s threads.
This is exactly the mentality that I'm hearing from a few neighbors. Now I know where they are getting some of the ridicules ideas.
“Jon_Deaux” push the buttons… Baton Rouge will become New York City. In five years you’ll have a strip mall and an apartment. The developer has a hidden agenda. TNDs are for downtown areas, etc., etc.
This is one of the reasons the neighbors are so upset and things are getting out of hand in our neighborhood.
Posted by Jon_Deaux on November 15, 2007 at 11:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Fred: To a certain extent you are right. Among the contributors are obviously urban planners that with credentials coming out of the wazoo. And, yes I wanted urbnplnnr to lay out his/her “cure all philosophy” that supports his/her views. And yes, I wanted people to see the idealistic silliness laid out before them. There is enough truth to make this whole New Urbanism concept really scary. Of course, who can argue that our streets need to be connected? Who can argue that opportunities need to be provided for all people and not just the White Man? Who can argue that compromise is called for in areas that once were rural and are now urban? The problem comes in when these common sense views are imbedded with illogical fantasy. The problem comes in when you try to convince peoples that somehow the apartment complex next door won’t cause what time and memorial has shown otherwise. The problem comes in with your description of your neighbor as an “evil, SUV driving, soccer mom” and they know the truth to be otherwise. The problem comes in when you tell common sense people that a development of this density will not have serious negative repercussions to the integrity of their neighborhood.
My fear with this whole push (New Urbanism, TND, Smart Growth) is that the baby will be thrown out with the bathwater. There are practical, common sense community planning ideas that will get lost in these fantasy walks down “Non Existent Lane”. But for goodness sakes, we are not talking about dark paneling form the 70’s that can be changed out or painted. This in an area of primarily single family owned homes and what goes up here will affect the lives of many. Compromise over the density is warranted.
Well laid out city grids are not that complicated, but because of a failed city planning commission we are handicapped to even make sound judgments. Because of the stupidity of our city grid we are all arguing blindly. (Thank you Mayor Holden for trying to connect our streets!!) People, take some time and study the street grid of New Orleans and other well laid out cites; then study the lack of a developed street grid in Baton Rouge….someone was asleep at the wheel.
Suggested areas of compromise:
1. Secure from the developer and the city a 10 year commitment to address (and remedy) all infrastructural problems that may arise.
2. Demand that all first floors of commercial structure be constructed of brick (and most certainly not stucco)
3. Only OWNER OCCUPIED residential
4. Require a reduction of population density.
Oh, and Fred I don’t even know who Chris Kisling is. And thank you Papadeaux, I am entitled to my opinion.
Posted by fourx5 on November 15, 2007 at 11:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"1. Secure from the developer and the city a 10 year commitment to address (and remedy) all infrastructural problems that may arise."
Sure. Do the same with all new commercial properties in Baton Rouge. Wal Mart on College 'frinstance.
"2. Demand that all first floors of commercial structure be constructed of brick (and most certainly not stucco)"
Sure. And drive up the costs to the point where building a TND is not feasible. Way to solve your problem by running them out of a business model.
"3. Only OWNER OCCUPIED residential"
That ought to help bring young professionals to Baton Rouge. NOT.
"4. Require a reduction of population density."
Because what we really need in Baton Rouge is more people spread out over more area, all using the same screwed up streets to get downtown for work in the morning. Higher densities with better access to public transit work - it's been proven time and time again in many other cities.
No thanks.
Posted by Dot on November 15, 2007 at 11:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Fred, I don't think it's the intention of JonDeaux to push buttons. I suspect Deaux has an informed opinion based on certain proposals in Mr. Spinosa's plan, and is wanting to inform others with the information that he/she has gathered. That, coupled with the fact that the developer has referred to another recent Baton Rouge JTS project as a "metropolis within Baton Rouge" leads one to believe that his intent with Rouzan could be a bit ill-aligned with the surrounding areas of Woodchase, Pollard and the rest of Southside.
It's difficult to predict the exact nature of the project until it's completed, though, isn't it? If this TND ends up looking anything like quaint Prospect New Town - with an seamless density - it would be acceptable to many people here. But if the end product results in a sister to Perkins "Commerce" Rowe, or has 5-story rental buildings, I worry this area will disintegrate into more commercial development. Really, HOW MANY coffee houses, specialty clothing stores, and upscale salons do we need -- or want -- in Baton Rouge? Why are we wanting more stores for more stuff made from the underpaid labor poor people in countries over-run with multi-national corporations? Yuck! Do any of us have a grasp of the big picture anymore? Do we even care?
Pre-war "Traditional" Neighborhood Developments (the original ones) were comprised of single-family houses, duplexes, Capitol Grocery, a dress shop, a menswear store, a barber shop and Colombia/Paramount Theatre. The type of gross commercial excess (and corresponding credit debt) we see these days was unheard of.
Well, I suppose I'm on one of my tangential rants, now. My apologies for my digression.
A strong sense of community is very much alive in this area. We WALK our streets every day! I would venture to say the vast majority of us know most of the people in our neighborhood (including their children and dogs). This is certainly not some elusive comraderie that is afforded only to people who are "forced" into it by tighter proximity. It is a natural evolution. It is the very thing that has inspired so much citizen involvment in this planning process. We really look after each other here. Isn't that fantastic?
Posted by Fred on November 15, 2007 at 3:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh Jon_Deaux, Not the “David Duke” button... I could tell from your previous posts you’re very scared but I didn’t realize it was this bad.
Posted by Jon_Deaux on November 15, 2007 at 3:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
A pointless comment from a pointless man. I welcome all races and if you read that in what I said you are an idiot!!
Posted by fourx5 on November 15, 2007 at 3:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"A pointless comment from a pointless man."
Well, your list of four demands reads like a roll call from the white suburbanite's bible. You made your bed, now lie in it - or explain what your rambling post means in English, instead of Southern Republican code for "the scary blacks are gonna move in next door".
Posted by Dot on November 15, 2007 at 4:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh, my ... I think I'm becoming addicted to this soap opera. I've been reading prior posts of fourx5 (do you and Fred share the same computer cookies?) You posted that you interviewed for jobs with IEM and Lamar while you visited Baton Rouge -- did not take the jobs -- and now reside in Silicon Valley, working for NASA. We appreciate your continued (very passionate) interest in the Baton Rouge community, but your posts are beginning to have a creepy feel. In the spirit of progress and civility, it would be great if we could stay focused on our arguments (in favor of or against) the Rouzan proposal as it stands.
Posted by Fred on November 15, 2007 at 4:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
My appologies, I requested that it be removed right after I posted it, but I guess it takes some time. I think like the planner person, I'm getting too caught up in this... Again, my appologies.
Posted by fourx5 on November 15, 2007 at 6:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You seem to have read up on my posting history Dot - but you left out some important parts. I still care a lot about Baton Rouge because much of my family still lives there. I'd like to see the city grow up into a more progressive metropolitan center, but if the folks opposing Rouzan are doing so because the development is going to make life miserable in so many ways, then I think it's worth exploring what they think is so terrible about the new development.
(You may want to go back and read those posts again; at both IEM and Lamar, I was either offered a position which was rescinded without reason after I accepted, or was told the position I'd interviewed for was being eliminated. For a city that claims to want progressive young workers, Baton Rouge is a pretty hostile place.)
Jon_Deaux seems to think that a condominium development patterned after a popular local home style is the same as a TND, which proves he doesn't know what he's talking about.
The fact that I grew up in Louisiana and have lived in California for most of the past fifteen years does give me perspective that most people in Baton Rouge don't seem to have or want. If an idea is different, no matter whether it's a TND, a pledge not to discriminate, or simply hiring someone who has worked several contract positions, Baton Rouge businesses and citizens all too often seem scared out of their minds of change. Especially when it comes to the issue of class and racial difference, (which to a large degree is what TNDs can help to minimize), Baton Rouge is holding itself back with outdated attitudes.
I'd have to disagree that my posts are 'creepy'. They're simply not in line with what you think is civil discussion, so I'll leave it to all of you who still live there to figure out what it is that you really want out of your city.
Posted by Jon_Deaux on November 15, 2007 at 6:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Fred: My “great and mighty whiteness” was left behind a long, long time ago. People of any race are not only welcome into by life but my heart as well. We all have the ability of go off the handle and I am most certainly aware of the passions behind this issue. Your apology is completely accepted (and frankly respected). Although I believe the core of what I said in my comments I most certainly could have expressed them without the sarcasm. I apologize as well. I don’t live in the area any longer but I do have fond memories and wish your community the best.
Posted by Fred on November 15, 2007 at 8:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks Jon_Deaux, it sounds like all of us have one thing in common... Our passion and love of this neighborhood.
Posted by Dot on November 16, 2007 at 9:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Group hug!
Now that we've established that I'm the only one here actually living in the area, I'd like to come back to my initial inquiry:
801 residences, divided by the ENTIRE tract of Mr. Spinosa's acreage (about 118 acres) equals 6.78 residences per acre. BUT ...
once you deduct the acerage on which the library and all of the commercial properties and parking areas will sit --
(1) how many ACRES are ACTUALLY dedicated to residential property?
(2) when 801 residences is divided by (that appropriately ADJUSTED NUMBER of acres) ...
WHAT IS THE FINAL ACTUAL DENSITY OF RESIDENCES PER (NON-COMMERCIAL/PUBLIC USE) ACRE?
8? 9? 10 residences per acre??? Keep in mind that surrounding neighbors have 3 - 4 residences per acre, and are looking for a seamless fit.
Can anyone answer this very elementary math equation, as math is not my forte' (and is apparently not the developer's either.)
Thank you kindly.
Posted by por_deni on November 16, 2007 at 11:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The unwritten rule of 4 units per acre dates from pre-airconditioning days when you needed airflow around and underneath a house for natural cooling during the sultry Southern summers. Because we have grown accustomed to this rule, we are averse to higher density. The technology exists to increase density and maintain a comfortable indoor climate. The trade-off is that you lose your personal park of a yard, but in a TND, there are shared open spaces. I think this is a more efficient use of land because we don't use our entire yard at all times, but shared space will be utilized to a greater degree.
DOT: If we eyeball the conceptual plan, two-thirds of the 119 acre plot is residential. 800 housing units on 79 acres is 10 units per acre. This is on the low side of optimum density for an urban area. Walkability and public transit will not be at optimum utility.
However, the compact design is beneficial for providing city services. The less distance, say, a school bus, ambulance or fire truck has to travel, the more money all taxpayers save. If nothing else, this is where Baton Rougeans have to get behind greater density. We don't need our city workers traveling hither and yon, sitting in traffic all the while, to provide necessary services.
The added bonus will be increased tax revenues from this parcel of land. More money in the parish coffers will benefit the Green Light plan and sewer upgrades.
Posted by por_deni on November 16, 2007 at 11:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
As for the apartment question, to quote Jacobs' story:
"Lot sizes and home values will differ widely, they say, but as a rule the lots and homes will be smaller than in an A1 subdivision, with significantly higher prices per square foot.
Spinosa argues the Baton Rouge obsession with square-foot prices limits the quality of the homes available here, and freely admits Rouzan won’t be able to compete in that arena."
I interpret this to mean that we are looking at high-end real estate. Loft style apartments in the 1/4-million-dollar range are not going to slum down the area or bring down the home values in Southdowns, Pollard or Woodchase, folks.
And despite the pie-in-the-sky idealism that TNDs inspire in some, if the home prices are on the high side, we will not have social or economic diversity in this development. It's just another collection of homogeneous upper-middle class families, couples and singles. Again, your home values are safe.
Posted by jeldredge on November 16, 2007 at 11:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I am a resisent of this area, and have been following this issue, and in its current form, I am adamantly opposed to the TND rezoning. However, I am not a niether a member of the Southside Civic Assoc., nor do I know who Chris Kisling is. I find it strange that many of the posts are obsessed with bashing him an that organization.
This is a huge development that will effect a large area, and as such it is bordering on ridiculous to assert that objections would come from only one source. So ridiculous that I must wonder what the motives of some of these anonymous posters are, and if perpetuating the fiction that only a single person or organization is opposed to this rezoning is actually a strategy (and not a bad one) to make the opposition seem less widespread that it is in reality.
My name is Judson Eldredge, and I feel no concern about associating my real name with my real opinion on this issue.
Posted by Dot on November 16, 2007 at 2:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Por_deni,
I appreciate your thoughtful reply and your compelling argument. Someone should tell Mr. Spinosa to inject your words verbatum into the next Council meeting. I'm not being sarcastic, either. You've presented this in a way I had not considered before (i.e., the unwritten rule). It's a fair challenge to the post-war model. And yes, I'd actually like to see a less homogenous development, as well. As you'll see from one of my prior posts, I have a distaste for elite excess.
Posted by Fred on November 16, 2007 at 2:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Dot, thanks I can feel the love from that group hug…
To build on what por_deni says about density… One of the big problems (I think) is that this is just a conceptual plan that is required for rezoning by our Planning Commission. This is done so that the traffic and drainage. The final plan is not required until final approval by the PC. However, if you look at the Rouzan site it states “…will ultimately consist of up to 400 low density residential units, up to 400 medium density residential units…”. The medium density should include the apartment, lofts above the retail/office space, and the townhomes. The low density will likely be a combination of townhomes and single family residential. TNDs are designed with the highest density closet to the “town center” with decreasing density as you get closer to existing residential.
Jeldredge, from what I can tell must of the posters live in the neighborhood, including myself. I don’t think the objection is from one person and your right naming specific persons is bad posting. One call to the mayor’s office asking how many calls and emails they got from opponents and proponents before they called off the last PC meeting will give you some idea the ratio. But remember, opponents are always much loader in their opposition then proponents in their support. One drive down Hyacinth between Lee and Stanford will prove that (although it looks like all the signs are down except the Memorial Sign).
You know if this does get the initial approval from the PC and Metro Council, one thing is for sure, it will be the most closely watch and analyzed TND by neighbors in history, which should lead to the best TND ever.
Posted by por_deni on November 16, 2007 at 11:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I made an error and apologize. 4 units per acre IS in writing. From the UDC:
Section 8.201 A1 Single Family Residential District
The purpose of A1 is to permit low density residential development with a maximum density of
4.1 units per acre.
But that doesn't make it right.
Posted by Dot on November 17, 2007 at 12:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks for the correction por_deni.
Does anyone know if JTS plans to mitigate the microclimate effect that will come with developing this parcel of land? If Baton Rouge begins to expand this building concept over the coming decades -- with all of that new asphalt, and (obviously) much less porous land exposure -- the heat will reradiate into the ambient air (instead of being absorbed into the soil, and cooled into long wave radiation.) "Islands of urban heat" are a scientifically proven phenomenon. It's also an inherently obvious phenomenon to anyone in an area with fewer trees than (Southdowns for instance.) Also, is Spinosa planing for environmentally-friendly "green" building -- i.e., pervious paving, use of non-toxic building materials, etc.? He has no personal moral obligation on this front -- but it would be a beautiful thing if stewardship of the earth (an ethical concept) were a part of his plan. We do, after all, know a lot more about the deleterious effects of toxins, hard pavement, and over-development than we did 60 years ago.
I see in one of Jon_Deaux's posts above that he wants a committment from JTS to build ground floors with brick and not stucco. I realize that JTS can choose whatever building materials he desires, but stucco -- an ideal material for desert dwellings -- is a grossly inappropriate building material for high humidity climates. I promise you, good builders KNOW this ... and people who live in stucco houses in Louisiana know it, as well!
Posted by Fred on November 18, 2007 at 10:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Dot, don't know about the Green Issues, but concerning stucco, have a look at the developer's website listing of building types http://www.rouzan.net/thepattern.html. It looks like only the Mediterranean Rivival indicates the use of stucco.
Hopefully the developer will encourage the design practices suggest by Louisiana House (LA House) developed by the LSU AgCenter http://www.lsuagcenter.com/en/family_hom...
Posted by Fred on November 19, 2007 at 6:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Did anyone else watch the 6:00 pm news on channel 2? Sounds like maybe those not liking the Rouzan project were trying to setup the developer.
Posted by por_deni on November 20, 2007 at 10:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Missed it, Fred. However, I did receive a robocall on Friday advising me that Kyle Ardoin accepted a $2500 campaign donation from Tommy Spinosa, and that I should be worried about how, if he were elected, he would "protect" me from Rouzan. Horrors!
I don't need protection from a state legislator on a local zoning issue. That call was fear mongering, pure and simple.
Posted by Papadeaux on November 23, 2007 at 9:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I was trying to find more information about this topic when I came across www.for-rouzan.org Has anybody else looked at this site? Looks like it's from some of our neighbors?
Posted by kniesk on December 4, 2007 at 2:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Perhaps in a more removed location I might buy-in to a reduction of traffic based on residents staying in the community. But this doesn't add up. First, the church is non-denominational, so I doubt many will switch from their own church. Second, the school will only support 100 children. Also, if it’s public, many will send their children out of the neighborhood to a private school. Third, a library is great, but unfortunately most of our traffic problems are not residents beating a path to libraries. And finally regarding shopping, where do they think most people will shop? A small local store or Walmart or Office Depot etc. The smaller retailers simply cannot compete with a big national store on price for the necessities. Maybe a specialty store for example a jewelry or gift store might do well, but the residents will constantly travel down Hyacinth, up Stuart to the more popular retail areas.
Due to the close proximity of better competition, I still believe A-1 housing is the way to go for this location. The A-1 zone will decrease the number of these residents traveling to their real church, school and grocery store. Or if that stuff is so important add the park, school, church, library and center the single home dwellings around a town square and allow multiple entrance/exits, but by keeping the dwellings single family, we will keep the density down. And that is the real reason for these perks. JTS wants to increase density to increase sales. They know without the perks they won’t get it through. Even though realistically, the residents will travel as much as ever.
Posted by Dot on December 5, 2007 at 8:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Kniesk, you've looked directly into future of Rouzan's resident's lives with astonishing clarity. Spot on observations!
Posted by Jon_Deaux on December 5, 2007 at 3:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
In a sense urbanplanner is right…it is because we don’t understand the motivation behind their rationale what is in reality clearly illogical is somehow logical to them. TND’s and Smart Growth are rooted in the concepts and principles of New Urbanism. This school of thought centers on the most extreme and egaderated assumptions in the environmental movement. Their enemy is what sits in your garage. If this movement is successful and our “infill” is populated with developments of this type there will be such a degree gridlock created that individual vehicular modes of transportation will be made impractical (forced Mass Transit..no option). While we logically view the infrastructural constraints prohibitive for such a development they on the other hand see the “bigger picture”. If this is the route that our city chooses that’s fine but it should not be determined by the actions a few. We need to speak up as a city and let our City Council know exactly how we feel. Research and decide for yourself…
Two points I’d like to make:
1. As stated by kniesk the amount external travel necessary for the residence of this development (and other like developments) will be basically the same as other subdivisions.
2. Even in development of this type people do not, will not and should not sacrifice their vehicles. The automobile has brought a tremdous degree of independence & opportunity and has enhanced the quality of life greatly.
Having said that, there is very little that is modern about the automobile. Apart from a sleeker appearance and a few engine modifications, that is basically you grandfathers vehicle. I am neither classily liberal nor conservative and blame every administration from “Peanut Man” to “Peanut Brain”. Whether for Environmental or Economical/Defensive reasons as a nation we should have broken the dependency on foreign oil a long time ago. Now we have no choice and are forced to do what we should have done willingly. There are technologies already created that once perfected well end the damaging affects of carbon based fuel. (Hydrogen fuel cell powered vehicles for one.) The irony in their arrogance is that to view our existence without the vehicle completely lacks vision and is not progressive in thought!!
Post a comment
(Requires free registration.)